Large-Scale Dairies and Their Neighbors: A Case Study of the Perceived Risk
in Two Counties

Abstract
Most urban residents, many nonfarm
rural residents, and even family farmers view large-scale animal agriculture
as an undesirable neighbor. A study examined the perceived attributes of
the manager of the risk in two communities upon the siting of a large-scale
dairy. Conclusions were: 1) community members are unable to identify the
manager of the risk, 2) citizens feel hopeless to act, 3) personal experience
in agriculture leads to understanding the issues, 4) large-scale animal agriculture
is a cultural shift, 5) two-way communication with communities is essential,
and 6) safety precautions by the farmer leads to greater community acceptance
of the dairy.

M. Susie WhittingtonAssociate Professor
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohiowhittington.1@osu.ed

Introduction

In 1998, Ohio's agriculture industry contributed $67.7 billion to the state's
economy and employed one-in-six Ohioans in areas such as wholesaling, retailing,
farm production, marketing, processing, and agribusiness (Ohio Department of
Agriculture, 1998). The swine, poultry, and dairy industries represented a
$1.85 billion farm gate value in the state of Ohio. Ohio ranked eleventh in
the nation in milk production, with several large-scale diary units being planned
(National Agricultural Statistic Service, 2000).

While Ohio is rich with agriculture, it is equally rich with metropolitan
culture. Because Ohio ranked 6th in population, yet 35th in landmass among
all states in 1998 (Ohio Department of Agriculture, 1998), its unprecedented
margins of rural/urban interface became a crucible for "large-scale animal
agriculture" versus "the community" conflicts. Due to the strong
reactions of such communities, Ikerd (2002) referred to large-scale farming
as, ". . . one of the most contentious issues to confront rural America
in recent history" (p. 3). On the contrary, despite the numerous potential
threats associated with large-scale animal agriculture, some communities in
Ohio accepted the enterprises with little or no opposition.

The reactions of Ohio communities to large-scale dairy farms were similar
to the reactions of communities that faced the siting of other risky enterprises,
such as nuclear power plants, waste facilities, and prisons. Research consistently
concluded that trust accounted for a significant portion of the variance in
perceptions of risk in such situations (Slovic, Flynn, & Layman, 1991;
Siegrist, 2000). Slovic (1999) concluded that activities perceived as high
in benefit and low in risk were considered acceptable. However, a high degree
of trust in those responsible for controlling unacceptable activities led people
to participate in the risky activities. Numerous attributes of trust were identified,
including confidence in the institution(s) responsible for controlling the
risk and perceptions that the institution(s) responsible for controlling the
risk acted in the best interest of the community.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study reported here was to describe the perceived attributes
of the manager of the risk that were present in a community that was generally
unopposed to the siting of a large-scale dairy farm and to describe the perceived
attributes of the manager of the risk that were present in a community that
was generally opposed to the siting of a large-scale dairy farm. The specific
questions that guided the study were:

How was the manager of the risk, associated with the large-scale dairy
farm, defined by the communities?

How confident were communities in the manager(s) of the risk?

How did communities perceive that the manager(s) of the risk acted in
the best interest of the community?

Methods and Procedures

An embedded, multiple case study was used (Yin, 1994). A combination purposeful
sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) was selected to identify cases for the study
that met the criterion of importance: size, ownership, location, and the overall
community reaction to the proposed farm. Cases were identified in which the
proposed dairy farm was large-scale, but under the state regulation limit of
700 cows. Chain sampling (Patton, 1990) was utilized to ultimately identify
the best two Ohio communities for comparison: Liberty Township, located in
Wood County, and Jackson Township, located in Wyandot County.

A unique strength of the case study design is the use of multiple sources
of evidence (Yin, 1994). The study utilized transcribed interviews as the primary
source of data and reviews of documents and archival records as secondary sources
of data. Two rounds of informant interviews were used to learn information
about the culture being studied (Pelto & Pelto, 1978).

During the first round of interviews, seven individuals were interviewed in
Wood County, and five individuals were interviewed in Wyandot County. Interviewees
from both counties were one of more of the following county/township representatives:
the Agricultural Education instructor at the public high school closest to
the proposed farm; the Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Agent who
was working in the county when the farm was proposed; the Farm Bureau Organization
Director who was working in the county at the time of the proposed siting;
a Township Trustee in the township of the proposed siting; a representative
of the county Soil and Water Conservation District; or a representative of
the local media. These original sources provided five names each for the chain
sampling. As recommended by Glesne (1999), a pilot study was conducted prior
to the main interviews.

The second round of informant interviewees was determined through criteria
(affected by the siting of the farm) and chain sampling (Patton, 1990). Twenty
interviewees for each county were selected: owners of the proposed farms, neighbors
of the proposed farms, operators of farms in close proximity to the proposed
farms, individuals who vocally opposed the proposed farms, individuals who
were vocally unopposed to the proposed farms, and individuals who were knowledgeable
about citizen interactions in the communities. A combined standardized open-ended
interview and interview guide approach (Patton, 1990) was utilized. A tape
recorder was used only during the interviews in which participant consent was
given. Notes were taken during the interview to document key points and behaviors
of the participant. A member check was conducted to ensure that participants
felt the information they provided was accurately reported.

The researcher committed to the ethical guidelines outlined by Christians
(2000). To increase trustworthiness, the researcher reflexively identified
his/her experiences and feelings that may have influenced the study: (1) a
personal and educational background in agriculture; (2) an appreciation for
rural life and traditional agricultural practices; (3) a belief in the need
for agricultural progress; and (4) a concern for the well-being of the environment.
These potential influencers were shared in the standard protocol used for each
interview. The interviews are synthesized and reported in the findings.

Findings

Wyandot County

Defining the Manager of the Risk

In defining the manager of the risk, community members were asked to identify
who was responsible for controlling the risks associated with the farm. Three
categories emerged: (1) the farm operators; (2) government and environmental
agencies; and (3) Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development.

The Farm Operators. Numerous community members identified the operators
of the farm. One participant commented, "The farmer is the only person
who can control what goes on over there. No one else can do anything because
he doesn't have to be regulated." Others recognized that the Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Vreba-Hoff were useful for consultation,
but that ultimately the operator of the farm had control of the risks.

Government and Environmental Agencies. Numerous government and environmental
agencies were identified. County and township government was recognized as
being responsible for ensuring the quality of the roads, as well as dealing
with social concerns within the community. One informant indicated that the
Health Department was responsible for managing the water quality and that the
Department of Natural Resources would manage the rivers, streams, and aquatic
life. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was identified
by one informant because the agency regulated the employees at the farm. The
EPA and SWCD were also identified because of their involvement in working with
the farm to develop waste management plans.

Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development. Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development was identified.
While some informants felt that Vreba-Hoff was solely responsible, others meshed
Vreba-Hoff with the dairy operators and gave both the responsibility. "I'm
talking about everything from the family, all the way up to the corporation.
They all share some responsibility." Informants' confidence in Vreba-Hoff's
ability to manage the risks was mixed. One person said:

I think they want to. It gets back to the scale thing. I think they
got 600-700 cows there now. Yeah, that's manageable, I think they can do that.
Now, if they go up to the 1,500 or 2,000 or whatever the next level is, I don't
know, I don't know.

Confidence in the Manager of the Risk

When asked to rate their confidence in the operators' ability to manage the
risks, community members who supported the dairy were very confident. One farmer
who contracted with the operators said, "I'd give him a 10. [The operator]
is even going to build another lagoon to be safe. He has one of the best milk
qualities with low bacteria. He does an excellent job." On the contrary,
neighbors of the farm who were directly affected by some of the negative impacts
were not confident in the operators. One angrily stated:

He can't control it himself though. He built on a marsh and he just
can't do anything about it. He doesn't have any experience over here either.
There's just no way he can take care of the odor, flies, and manure.

Community members' confidence in the government and environmental agencies
varied. One citizen said:

But from what I can see in the design, I would say their chances
of keeping that in control is probably a seven or eight [on a ten-point scale].
I think they've taken a lot of steps. I think the owner has tried to work with
these agencies and seek help when he needed to.

However, one informant who vocally opposed the farm said, "No one in
government has helped us – trustees, commissioners, people in Columbus – none
of them want to get their hands dirty with this problem."

Acted in the Best Interest of the Community

Living on the premises, working closely with SWCD, being friendly and open
to other members of the community, being active in local organizations, injecting
the manure, spraying for flies, and running a clean operation were given as
ways that the operators acted in the best interest of everyone around them.
Comments included, "To me, they are trying to do everything by the book," "From
being over on the farm a lot, I know that [the operator] is concerned about
his operation," and "He doesn't seem to be a person who is just out
being selfish."

On the contrary, one informant felt that the farm enjoyed not having to follow
the strict rules in the U.S. as they had to follow in the Netherlands and that
the operators did a poor job managing the farm, which hurt the air and water.
The participant said, "He just wants to make money and isn't concerned
about what he's doing to other people."

Informants who identified government and environmental agencies as the managers
of the risk felt that they were operating in the best interest of the community
as indicated by their comments on the cooperation between the farm and such
organizations and indicating that the outcomes of the relationship were positive
for the entire community. One individual who did not recognize government and
environmental agencies as the managers of the risk felt that the organizations
were not acting in the best interest of the community, as indicated by their
delay in fixing roads and their apathy toward citizen concerns.

Conclusions and Discussion for Wyandot County

Participants identified three managers of the risk: operators, government,
and Vreba-Hoff. Participants identifying Vreba-Hoff perceived the farm operators
to be part of the Vreba-Hoff organization. Informants identifying Vreba-Hoff
as the manager of the risk were confident that the company could control the
risks of the dairy at its current size, but not during future farm expansion.

Individuals supporting the dairy and identifying the farm operators as the
manager of the risk were confident in the abilities of the farm operators to
control the risk. Neighbors of the farm who opposed the dairy and identified
the farm operators as the manager of the risk were not confident in the abilities
of the farm operators to control the risk due to lack of experience, poor quality
soil, and a record of poor management.

Informants with high confidence in government agencies perceived that the
agencies had done their best to work with the farm in the past. Informants
with low confidence in the agencies believed the agencies were unwilling to
get involved.

Informants identifying the farm operators as the manager of the risk felt
that the operators acted in the best interest of the community by: living on
the site of the farm, working closely with SWCD, being friendly and open to
the community, participating in local organizations, injecting the manure,
spraying for flies, and operating a clean facility. Citizens opposing the farm
felt that the operators did not act in the best interest of the community,
as evidenced by their record of poor management and apathy for the community.

Informants identifying government and environmental agencies as managers of
the risk felt that they acted in the best interest of the community by cooperating
with and assisting the farm. A participant who opposed the farm felt that the
government and environmental agencies did not act in the best interest of the
community, as evidenced by their apathy toward handling citizen concerns.

Wood County

Confidence in the Manager of the Risk

The Farm Operators. One common response, when being asked to identify
the manager of the risk, was that no one could control the risks associated
with the farm, as demonstrated by the "hands-off" approach taken
by most individuals and agencies in handling the concerns raised by citizens.
However, the most commonly identified managers of the risk were the operators
of the farm. Several people unopposed to the farm identified the farm operators,
whereas one person opposed to the farm identified the farm operators. However,
all of the informants were confident in the operators' ability to control the
risks associated with the dairy. One participant said, "I'd give them
a seven (on a scale of one to ten). You don't stay in business unless you're
efficient and take care of your cows. You treat your farm as a part of you
because you need it to run well to make a living."

Government and Environmental Agencies. A group of citizens opposed
to the farm identified politicians as the managers of the risk. However, the
group unanimously rated the politicians as a zero on a one-to-ten scale stating
that the politicians would not control the risks until the negative impacts
effected them personally. In addition, the group felt that the politicians
had not acted in the best interest of the community, as indicated by their
lack of initiative in solving the problems brought to them by community members.
One person said, "They have done nothing, they haven't done a thing. They're
worried about their own personal agenda and that's all that matters." One
participant identified the ODA as the manager of the risk, but expressed very
low confidence in the agency: "I met him [Director of ODA] and thought,
'Oh my God, we're in deep trouble.' He could not answer one question that I
had."

Acted in the Best Interest of the Community

Informants unopposed to the farm believed the operators were acting in the
best interest of the community primarily for the well-being of their operation.
The informant opposed to the farm thought the operators were not acting in
the best interest of the community mainly because they were buying materials
outside of the area and were bringing odor and flies into the neighborhood.

Conclusions and Discussion for Wood County

Commonly noted among the opposition was that no one could control the risks
associated with the dairy farm because most individuals and agencies did not
make sufficient efforts to alleviate the concerns raised by citizens. Individuals
who did identify a manager of the risk often identified the farm operators.
Citizens opposed to the farm identified politicians and the ODA as managers
of the risk.

All informants identifying the farm operators as the manager of the risk were
confident in the abilities of the farm operators to control the risk because "the
operators had to run a clean, efficient operation in order to stay in business
and make a profit." Those identifying politicians as the manager of the
risk were not confident in the politicians' abilities to control the risks
because they felt that the politicians were only looking-out for their own
political well-being and not the well-being of the entire community. The individual
who identified the ODA as the manager of the risk expressed very low confidence
in the agency's ability to control the risk.

Participants unopposed to the farm felt that the farm operators acted in the
best interest of the community, primarily for the well-being of the operation.
On the contrary, the participant who opposed the farm thought the operators
did not act in the best interest of the community because the operators purchased
materials from outside of the community, and brought in flies and odor. Citizens
identifying politicians as the managers of the risk perceived that the politicians
did not act in the best interest of the community, as demonstrated by their
lack of initiative in solving the problems brought to them by citizens.

Implications

The wide variety of managers of the risk identified suggests that communities
do not know who is actually responsible for controlling the risks associated
with the farm. Information of an educational nature such as flow charts indicating
key personnel and their duties must saturate the community prior to the siting
of a large-scale dairy operation.

Some citizens feel hopeless because governmental agencies have not alleviated
the concerns of the citizens. Local agencies need action plans in preparation
for pre-siting of these operations.

Large-scale animal operations bring about a cultural shift in many Ohio communities,
representing a type of agriculture that is not business-as-usual. Large-scale
operations are a business and must take steps in the community to gain the
trust of citizens, as all businesses must. Operations must maintain a history
of excellent management, and provide open communication to the community through
public relations initiatives such as farm open-houses and school tours. Representatives
of the farm must be active and friendly in the community.

Two-way communication with the public allows for easier access into communities.
Large-scale animal management firms must share information about the intentions
of the farm, the farm operators, the benefits and threats presented to the
entire community, and the involvement of the management firm. In addition,
the management firm must listen to concerns of citizens and make adjustments
to the siting plans accordingly. Presenting information to civic organizations,
cooperating with neighbors of the farm, and acting on concerns of the community
will lead to better acceptance, as well as a healthier community environment
in which to live.

Extra efforts made by the farm to ensure a safe operation leads to greater
acceptance by communities. The study suggests that farm operators abide by
state laws for CAFOs, even when the farms operate under the CAFO limits.